Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Republican Victory? Expect Disappointment

The news rang out this morning that the Republican Party won a majority of seats in the Senate, where it had been working at a deficit for the last 8 years. The Republican  Party also shored up its majority in the House of Representatives during yesterday's national elections.

If you have read the current iteration of the Republican Party Platform, there are some great ideas in there:

  • Restoration of Constitutional Order
  • Defending against Activist Judiciary
  • Defense of Marriage
  • Constitutional Budget
  • Voter Integrity
  • Reinforcement of the protection of Constitutional Amendments
  • Recognition of the Sanctity of Life
These are honorable and Constitutional objectives, but you can color me a deep shade of skeptical. The last time that the Republican Party had control of the government of the United States, it boasted majorities in the House, the Senate and the executive branch (George W. Bush.) That president also was able to appoint (and have confirmed) two judges to the Supreme Court. Yet with all of the "positives" from that political season in America, there was:

Thankfully, our salvation is not found in politics. This nation needs a spiritual awakening. The government can try to force non-Christians to exercise Christian values, but this is worthless. True change of heart is available only through the saving grace of Jesus. So temper your expectations and pray for revival!


Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Evolution of the Gaps

Sometimes, in Christians circles, the conversation goes around that since there are gaps in our understanding of how God created, that those gaps must be filled with something. Today's culture is so saturated with naturalistic thinking that in many cases, those gaps are being unnecessarily filled with evolution. It's fair to ask, "is evolution a proper gap-filler for Christians?"

First what is evolution? Evolution is best understood as a natural process that changes living things from one thing to another, so that they can better survive and reproduce in their surroundings. In the 1800's Charles Darwin proposed a mechanism for evolution called natural selection. The idea for natural selection is that some creatures have differences from their siblings that allow them to have a greater chance at survival and reproduction, and so their traits will be passed on to subsequent generations. The leading atheist of our day, Richard Dawkins says, "“Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

More recently, with the advent of modern microscopes, scientists have developed the science of genetics. Genetics is the study of DNA and how the information in our genes control the mechanisms of life. The science of genetics has found that when DNA is copied, there are sometimes copying mistakes called mutations. These mutations are said to be the raw materials for producing new features like wings or echolocation.

These processes are said to have taken a billion years or so to go from the simplest common ancestor to today's brightest humans. All together, genetic mistakes, natural selection and lots of time are the mechanisms of evolution. And because these processes are all said to occur naturally with no supernatural intervention, then there's no need for a creative God.

Biologist William Provine said, "Belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism."

Why should Christians explain creation with both evolutionary mechanism and deep time, which requires no God, to explain something that God did? So, if Christians think there are gaps in the Genesis story, it doesn't really make sense to fill those gaps with evolution.


Sunday, August 24, 2014

What if the water had a different meaning?

In the early dog-days of the summer in 2014 (I'm writing for posterity too) the proverbial gauntlet was dropped. Gauntlet? Too old for some of you? An ultimatum. A dare. A Contest. A Provocation.

Here's how the dare goes:

  1. Get someone to video you telling everyone that you accepted the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge from your provocateur
  2. Get someone to poor ice cold water on you
  3. Jump around a yell, "That is freezing cold!!!!!"
  4. Challenge someone else or maybe a few people to do the same.
  5. You could also pledge a donation to ALSA for research to end the terrible ALS disease. 
    1. It has come to my attention that ALSA.org has one division of their research that uses embryonic stem cells. In this research the human embryo is killed and many people disagree with this...including me. So, if you feel the need to donate to ALSA, please designate your funds to be directed away from the embryonic stem cell research. 
I think challenges are awesome. It can motivate people to do things that they would not have otherwise done. It can inspire the greatest performances, and it can push people to their limits. So, I don't want to pour cold water on this challenge...but I'm going to freeze it right there.

Having said that, as Christians, are we sharing the gospel with as much fervor as we are challenging others to dump cold ice on their heads. Being immersed in the Living Water has far greater value. Wouldn't we rather see them baptized into eternal life?

Take the ice bucket challenge. Then I challenge you to pray for and share the gospel with someone who needs life.





Luke 5:17-26 Some friends bring a paralytic man to Jesus for healing. His obvious need is to be healed from the paralysis. It strikes me as so poignant that Jesus ignores the man's obvious physical needs and forgives the man's sins. Jesus knew the man's REAL needs and the value of eternal forgiveness. But to show them that he was indeed the Messiah, he also healed the man's physical needs.

ALS is a terrible physical ailment for which scientists should research a cure. Sin and the punishment for sin are even worse. All Christians should be praying for and sharing the gospel with someone who needs Jesus...and we ALL need Jesus.

Friday, July 18, 2014

I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream For...

The new flavor of ice cream at What's The Scoop? in Portland, Oregon is called Rose City Revolution. For a limited time only, a full ten percent of the profits from those ordering the new flavor will go towards the world's leading provider of abortions, Planned Parenthood. And nothing says yummy like ripping babies' limbs off mixed with ice cream.

Abortion giant Planned Parenthood has announced that a local ice cream parlor has created an ice cream just for them. No it will not be called Blood and Scream!

I scream, you scream, we all scream about the insanity of killing children in the name of convenience. Unbelievable! Next, they'll be using aborted babies to generate electricity.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Captain Obvious

I remember the first time that I was called Captain Obvious. A friend had forgotten his homework in his car. Between classes, he had braved the torrential downpour to retrieve it. Laughing at his predicament, as he arrived back in the school, I commented, "You're soaked!" And we all know his derogatory reply..."Thank you, Captain Obvious!"

It would be difficult to use this same derogatory response to describe Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid's comments to the media regarding the limitation of Obamacare by the Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby Case.

“The one thing we are going to do during this work period, sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women’s lives are not determine by virtue of five white men,”
Um, Captain Clueless, Clarence Thomas isn't white. And remember, over half of the lives ended in abortion are young women.

Monday, July 7, 2014

Celebrate Excellence

I'm all for the recognition of a job well-done when someone achieves true excellence. I recently witnessed a good friend, who was a senior at CHS, delivered his senior thesis with monumental splendor. It was an impressive display of preparation, research, and delivery. Way to go, Preston! You performed with excellence!

There are times, however, that I think the celebration of excellence is deplorable.

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains gave its Aurua abortion clinic an award for increasing the number of babies killed in abortions.
When the killing of children is celebrated as honorable or goal-achieving, then something is desperately wrong with our culture. Politics cannot fix the problem. Our country needs revival in the worst way.

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Stop Global Whining

Sometimes, I think this post title could fit for most of the large political events in the country. Today's edition of "Stop Global Whining" regards the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the right of Hobby Lobby to run their business with a little more freedom than they would have had if they would have had to comply with the shackles of ObamaCare.

It's not a complete victory, but now Hobby Lobby does not have to pay for their female employees to murder their children. The progressives in the country are all bent out of shape because they continue to misunderstand the role of the Constitution and the government in general. Starting at the source, Justice Ginsberg said in her dissenting option:
[The Hobby Lobby decision will] deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage.

Justice Ginsberg seems not to understand the situation. Hobby Lobby does not intend to stop women from killing their children, they just do not intend to PAY for it. Matt Walsh, as only he can, elaborates:
These claims are unabashedly dishonest because they fail to take into account two important points: A) Hobby Lobby covers birth control. I say again: Hobby Lobby covers birth control. B) Whether any employer covers birth control or not, none are trying to stop women from accessing it. The issue here is whether a private company should be forced to pay for birth control, not whether it should be allowed to sneak into your house at night and check to make sure you don’t have a bottle of Yaz in your medicine cabinet. 

If your boss is in your bedroom, call the police. Or stop inviting him in. When you ask him to pay for what you do in the bedroom, you are inviting him in. Want him out? Good. Then stop making your birth control into a national headline. Deal with it yourself, privately. 

Not to be outdone, Bob Beckel appeared on Fox News stammering excitedly that now Orthodox Jewish business owners have the power to ‘tell their employees they can’t use electricity on Saturdays.’...Indeed, it takes the special lunacy of a man like Beckel to confuse ‘I’m not going to pay for this’ with ‘you cannot have this, even if you pay for it yourself.’
While this ruling is a tiny step in the right direction, people need to understand that the entire idea of government "giving" or "providing" rights to corporations to be exempt from government mandates is insanely backwards. The government does not grant rights to the people. The Constitution exists to protect the people's rights against the tyranny of the government.

Monday, June 2, 2014

Finally!

Finally, a version of the Bible that even the most ardent evolutionist can endorse. If you've been waiting for a version of the Bible without all of those pesky limitations that disregard modern thinking, your wait is over!

Were you ever frustrated that God said that he created the universe in six literal days? Well, now thanks to the team of scientists leading a group scholars with modern interpretations of naturalism, the Bible is free of archaic thinking.

Check out the latest interpretation of these well-known passages:

And there was evening, and there was morning—the first eon.—Genesis 1:5
Isn't that easier to read than the old way?

Then the Lord God took a few thousand hominids formed from ape-like ancestors through evolution and breathed in them, and they became spiritual beings.—Genesis 2:7
Trust in science with all your heart, and do not lean on the LORD’s understanding—Proverbs 3:5
The fear of man is most important for today’s Christians to maintain academic respectability, but he who trusts in the Lord is na├»ve.—Proverbs 29:25
Be conformed to this world and be transformed by the renewal of your mind towards secular academic thinking.—Romans 12:2

Now you can fit in with modern thinkers, cultural norms, and scientific consensus without having to reject parts of scripture. Enjoy!
 

Friday, May 23, 2014

It's a Curse

Hypocrisy is difficult to deal with. When I observe it, it tends to make me mad. When my wife observes it, she can hardly contain herself with righteous indignation. When I think of hypocrisy, I most often think of it as being applied to Christians, who have claimed to have a moral stand against something "wicked" but have then proceeded to be involved in exactly that. As a Christian, I've been a hypocrite...not intentionally, but usually with my kids, I'll find that I've failed on a moral level. It usually comes in the form of me yelling at my son, "You should not react with anger when you don't like something!!!!" Um...unless you're a parent...no that's not right either. Ok. So Christians are hypocrites...forgiven and (hopefully) letting God's Spirit guide our actions in accordance with His will.

What about Jesus? Jesus was not a hypocrite. Going way back in time, before Twitter, before Y2K, before Walmart, before Prohibition, before the Battle of the Alamo, before Columbus' famous voyage, before Guttenburg...well, you get the idea...back at the very beginning, there was freedom in the Garden of Eden. The only guideline was to avoid eating from a single tree. There were no other boundaries. Adam and Eve had a chance to show the Creator that they trusted him completely by obeying this single guideline and enjoying fellowship with Him. But when they thought they knew better than Almighty God...with a little deceit and doubt thrown in there by the serpent ("Did God REALLY say...?"), the repercussions were catastrophic. To quote from Genesis 3 when God had to enter his newly tarnished creation after the prideful sin of Adam and Eve,

Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it', Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.

So death, that terrible enemy, made itself prevalent within creation. Why are thorns and thistles mentioned in the curse? In the same sentence that describes Adam's inevitable death, God declares that mankind will face the problem of thorns. Odd.

Looking ahead to the fulfillment of God's promise to crush the head of the serpent through the offspring of the woman, Jesus lived a perfect life, but faced the final enemy (I Cor 15:26) with purpose and resolve. About the events just prior to Jesus' death, Mark records this:

They put a purple robe on him, then  twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him.


The curse of sin was explicitly stated in the garden as thorns and death. Jesus took both of these upon himself and decisively defeated them both with his resurrection. Thankfully, the perfect Messiah, who did not come to restore Israel's political dominance in worldly affairs, took the curse of sins upon himself so that we could be restored to life.

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Tim Tebow deserves an apology

There's not much to add to this posting by Matt Walsh, but people need to be wary about not being overly effusive with praise when gay people make the news.

Plenty of people have already said it, but it’s true that many of the Michael Sam cheerleaders are hypocrites of the lowest sort. Say what you will about Tim Tebow; one thing you can’t deny is that the dude was told loudly, harshly, and frequently, to ‘keep his religion to himself.’ Football isn’t a place for religion, they said.
But football is a place for sexual identity discussions?

I've talked with a friend of mine about how the gay agenda will affect enrollment, grants, and employment at openly Christian universities. Will the government deny grants/scholarships/loans to students who choose to go to Biola, LeTourneau University, or Oklahoma Baptist University? Will this persecution cause Christian universities to change their hiring practices...or will the lower enrollments cause them to close their doors?

I do not consider myself a homophobe as I've had friends who are gay. Like everyone, we are all sinners in need of repentance and the grace provided by Jesus's sacrifice. Gay people have simply chosen to define themselves by their wickedness...like a thief might come out of the closet saying that he is a criminal.

In the end, maybe Tim Tebow can get a chance to share the good news with Michael Sam, and Sam will choose to follow Christ.

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

He's not as effective as Hitler...yet

Tracking the donations of Warren Buffet over the last decade or so has revealed that this man has provided over $1.2 BILLION...with a 'B' to promote and execute the murder of children.

So the $1.2 billion that Buffett gave to these organizations is enough to pay for the abortions of more than 2.7 million babies in the womb.
To put that in perspective, Warren Buffett donated enough money to abortion groups to perform as many abortions as there are people in the entire city of Chicago. 

With a little more time and disposable income,  Buffett might be able to exterminate the population of the midwest.

Although Hitler was more effective over a shorter period of time, Buffet is gaining ground as one of the foremost murderers over the last hundred years. In fact, a case could be made (that since the $1.2 BILLION was all donated after the year 2000) that Warren Buffet is the millennium's keenest killer!


Thursday, May 8, 2014

Garbage in, Garbage out

I debate about whether to link to The Matt Walsh blog for his latest post, so I won't. I highly encourage those which strong stomach to read the text and see how God leads you to act. Be careful not to scroll too far down the page to avoid pictures of murdered children.

The post was driven by a video that a woman made during the premeditated murder of her firstborn child. It must grieve the heart of the Creator to see how his creation is behaving so openly wicked.

Even if you choose not to go to the post, this quote accurately depicts the nature of the soul

Your conscience is not a lunch tray, with all of the different components separated into their own compartments. Your conscience is a bucket, and everything you dump into it will mingle and mix with everything else. The point is, if you pour an acceptance of child murder into your bucket, it will poison everything else, and soon even the good parts will be colored and tainted by your tacit endorsement of violence against the innocent. It changes you, and how you see the world.

If you put garbage beliefs into your brain, your actions will be equally trashy.

The open murder of children in our culture is not the problem. It's just a symptom of the problem. The problem is the broken relationship between God and mankind. But the problem can be solved.

Thursday, April 3, 2014

Historical Rewrite

I've just seen a movie that I do not recommend. The main character had a biblical name, but you'd hardly recognize this version of the character. His story is pretty well known as most of us have heard the story as youngsters. In fact, much of the historical significance is captured in stone. The movie appears to be a historical account, but I couldn't help but notice the ridiculous liberties with which the director chose to take with the original story. The title character was apparently motivated with far different passions than what we've been led to believe all these years. Somehow, this new motivation taints the title character, and he is somehow diminished from his original stature.

The title character did accomplish a grand feat in both the original historical account and this new Hollywood version, but the "new" character is not so warm and righteous as we remember from history. The title character is joined in the movie by some recognizable friends. The movie portrayed the sad death of many many people, so wouldn't recommend this movie to be watched with the kids or with a date. The "Bad Guy" in the movie had mysterious and dark powers, and surprisingly, the good guy had help from similar mysterious powers.

It would be a shame if Hollywood's historical revisionism caused some to rethink their understanding of how the story goes, but you never know with people these days. People will believe a lot of crazy things.

So has anyone else seen Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter? On a related note, there's another movie out now in theaters that appears to take the name of a Biblical character and skew the entire story. While both biblically-named title characters doubtless contributed to history, the Hollywood versions appear to have perverted both men into something they were not.

Noah is a major Hollywood blockbuster, made by an atheist director best known for his previous flick where a mentally disturbed lesbian ballerina goes insane and bleeds to death on stage. Already, a critical person might be slightly concerned about his handling of the Bible, considering what he just did to the ballet.
These concerns grew from suspicion to reality before it was even released, when the man himself came out publicly and professed Noah to be both an environmentalist propaganda piece, and the “least Biblical” Bible film ever made.

Spend your money on something worthwhile, like God's Not Dead.

Friday, March 7, 2014

That's Six Too Many

My kids hate it when I say, "If you can't govern yourself, someone will govern for you." And that has become the state of our State.

With the failure of men to be strong leaders in their home and take responsibility for their families, morality has evaporated like puddle of water in the Texas summer.

There is a definite problem that the unborn have been devalued to the point where killing them has been deemed acceptable by our society. Even the "strongest" of the pro-choice arguments utterly fail when opposed by logic and standards of morality. But since people continue to be unable to govern themselves, the state has had to step in to protect humanity. By September 1st, all but six abortion clinics in Texas will be closed.

I confess that I'm very happy that the places which are killing little children can no longer conduct business. It would have been my preference, though that the people, who were doing the killing, would have closed their own doors knowing that what they were doing was wrong. Instead, when their doors are closed for them, they respond with,

"I've tried to keep them open and lost a lot money." - Whole Woman's Health CEO Amy Hagstrom Miller

Killing human children is worth a lot of money according to the abortion industry. It's time for men to take responsibility for their actions and protect their families rather than tear them apart.

Friday, February 7, 2014

Worldview Analysis

Another follow-up from the debate on 2/4/14 between Bill Nye, The Science Guy and Ken Ham, the CEO of Answers in Genesis.

Mr. Ham clearly taught during his presentation time that everyone has the same evidence. Nye clearly did not understand the depth of that argument, because he continually spouted his mantra that science has evidence and biblical creationists have a 3000 year old book.

Hopefully, I can help define the argument a little more clearly for Nye and his pre-Christian friends. As was said by Mr. Ham, everyone has the same evidence. There's not a secret stash of evolutionary evidence and there's not a secret stash of creation evidence upon which we put on a scale to measure which side would win. Instead, everyone has the same evidence, and everyone has to interpret the evidence according to their worldview.

Here are three examples of how people can see the same evidence and come to completely different conclusions based on their presuppositions:

1. Scientists A and B want to know the declining rate of distance that a frog can jump as legs are removed. So they get a healthy frog and say, "jump, frog, jump!" With all four legs he is able to jump 40 cm. They cut off 1 leg and say, "jump, frog, jump!" The frog jumps 30 cm with three legs and they note the change in their notebooks. They cut off another leg and say, "jump, frog, jump!" With two legs, the frog is able to jump 20 cm. Another leg is removed and they say, "jump, frog, jump!" With herculean effort, the frog jumps 10 cm. They cut off his last leg and say, "jump, frog, jump!" Scientist A writes in his conclusion, "There is a consistent decrease of distance that a frog can jump as legs are removed. Curiously, the frog goes deaf when all legs are cut off." Scientist B writes in his conclusion, "There is a consistent decrease in distance that a frog can jump as legs are removed. As expected, the frog is unable to move with no legs."

2. Jerry tells Paul that he saw Paul's wife waving goodbye to a handsome man leaving Paul's house this morning after Paul was already as work. Jerry says, "I think she's having an affair." Paul says, "I think she has been faithful, and I trust her." Same evidence. Different conclusion.

3. Scientist A and B are analyzing the complexity of DNA. Scientists A says, "Look at the complexity of the information within DNA molecules. There must have been an unimaginably great amount of time for natural processes to aggregate all of this information from countless copying mistakes." Scientist B say, "Look at the complexity of the information within DNA molecules. As a computer scientist, I know that information and programs only come from intelligence, so the programmer of DNA must be unimaginably intelligent!"

From the examples, you can see that everyone had the same information, but chose different conclusions because of their worldview. So, when debating someone about the veracity of origins stories (whether biblical creation or naturalistic evolution), a worldview analysis is in order.

Which worldview more clearly makes sense of reality and has the fewest contradictions. From my understanding of the naturalistic worldview, they believe that 13.7 billion years ago an unexplained singularity expanded into all of the known matter in the cosmos. Over time, matter coalesced into greater and greater objects until eventually they began to ignite into fusion-powered stars. As time passed planets coalesced around the star, Solar, and the third rock distant from this star generated a simple life form. With energy and radiation from Solar, the life form changed due to random mutations in the life form's genetic material. Through many generations of natural selection acting on the random mutations great diversity of life spread out and formed until mankind appeared. Homo Sapiens Sapiens is currently the pinnacle of organized complexity in the universe.

From this origins story, many questions arise regarding how to explain the existence of:

  1. Laws of logic. In a constantly changing, random, material cosmos, how would unchanging, universal, immaterial laws of logic have come about?
  2. Reason. Since mankind's existence is a result of random processes, why would we trust the way that chemical reactions in a person's brain uses reason? Reason seems not to have a proper foundation in this worldview. 
  3. Information. Information is known to come only from intelligence. How could a constantly changing cosmos account for information which requires a medium, syntax, code, code generator, and code recipient.
  4. Evil. Since everyone recognizes that there is evil, there must be a standard by which we can compare actions. The standard of good/evil does not have a basis in organized chemicals (our brains) which came about by processes that included randomness. While not everyone agrees on where the line is drawn, we all understand how things OUGHT to be. If things ought to be a certain way, then when things are not that way, it can be defined as evil. If the universe simply exists as the naturalistic worldview would presuppose, then there would be no recognition of evil/bad/ought. Things would just be amoral. 
Each of these things is better explained by believing the biblical account of creation.
  1. Logic is a representation of how the Creator God thinks. We are made in his image, so that we can comprehend and use the universal laws of logic.
  2. Reason/wisdom is part of the gift that God imparted to Adam. Proverbs 9:10 and Psalms 111:10 says "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Knowing the Creator of all matter/knowledge has imparted to us the ability to know some things and make decisions...reason.
  3. Information requires intelligence. Compared to DNA, the programming/code inside the most complicated computer, is infantile. But no one would argue that the programming/code in the computer came about naturally. It was the product of thousands of hours by intelligent programmers.
  4. Evil is manifest when people irrationally make choices without/against the guidance of Almighty God. 
So, a worldview analysis would appear to conclude that when one presupposes that the God of the Bible is the Creator and we are responsible to Him, then reality makes sense of the evidence around us.

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Nye is a Better Debater

Full disclosure: I subscribe to Ken Ham’s quarterly magazine subscription, Answers, and I fully support the ministry of his organization, Answers in Genesis.

Last night, Ken Ham engaged in a debate with Bill Nye the Science Guy. The topic for the debate was “Is Biblical Creation a viable scientific explanation in today’s world.” After watching the debate, it is apparent that Mr. Ham is a better teacher than he is a debater. And it’s a shame, because he had all of the facts on his side. Mr. Nye could only offer snide conjecture, lots of straw man fallacies, and several examples of false information. But Nye was charismatic, funny, and believable.

I’ve composed a few talking points based on Nye’s snide debate points where I think Mr. Ham could have refuted Nye’s arguments and shown himself to be in more confident control of the debate.


  1. At one point, Mr. Nye mocked the idea of the size of the ark by saying that large wooden vessels in the past torque and twist so badly that they leak and sink. Mr. Ham should have responded that the ark had no masts or engines. It wasn’t going anywhere; it only needed to float, not sail. The twisting would have been exacerbated by the SIX masts and huge sails that Nye mentioned were on the huge wooden vessel in the 1800s. None of those were needed on the ark since it only had to float.
  2. Mr. Ham had only a limited time to answer the questions of radiometric dating, and he did fairly well for those of us that understand the assumptions inherent in the radiometric dating. I think the sentence he should have said is, “If we find that rocks of known age (Mt. St. Helens) are dated with radiometric dating with incorrect dates (2.8 million years), why should we trust the dates provided by radiometric dating on rocks that were not observed being formed?”
  3. Nye said several times that he thinks Ham is saying that physical laws changed over the last 4000 years. This is a typical straw man argument. Ham has said nothing of the sort. It is Nye, who says that physical laws have changed over time since:
    1. Physics has to be altered to accommodate the Big Bang. The Big Bang as proposed is counter to known physical laws.
    2. Biology has to be altered to accommodate Nye’s belief in abiogenesis. Life comes from rocks, Bill? This is counter to known biological laws.
    3. Chemistry has to be altered to accommodate the creation of elements (with an atomic weight higher than 26) in stars. To speculate that the heavier elements were formed in supernova pushes the evidence beyond the testable boundaries of science. 
    4. Stellar evolution has to be redefined since the birth of a new star requires the death of an old star (chicken/egg problem).
  4. Ham clearly stated that Biblical kinds are loosely synonymous with the scientific classification of family rather than species. Nye put another straw man argument that since there are currently about 16,000,000 species then approximately 11 new species would have needed to emerge each day since the flood ended. Almost all of those 16,000,000 species are bacteria, bugs, and fish. None of these would have been specifically protected within the ark, so their biological development could have continued from creation 6000 years ago. The real problem is for evolution since they cannot answer (with evidence) where the new information came from to generate new/unique traits in organisms over time. Creation follows the evidence that information can only come from intelligence.
  5. Nye spouted that there are no fossils of kangaroos in the proposed path from Asia to Australia, but he must not understand how fossils are formed. Fossils form in very specific conditions…flood conditions. An organism has to be buried quickly to avoid the concentric ring of scavengers. We would not expect fossils of kangaroos from Asia to Australia since the flood was already over. Nye’s contention is simply ridiculous. How many American Bison fossils do you expect to find in the American southwest? There were millions of these creatures roaming North America and were nearly wiped out without the formation of any fossils. Evolutionists have a huge problem with the existence of fossils since dead things do not lay on the surface for millions of years as they are slowly buried. Fossils are a direct expectation/prediction from the Biblical history. Christians expect billions of dead things to be buried in sedimentary rock layers.
  6. Atheists still unable to answer the questions of the origin of logic/mathematics/natural laws/matter/information. Nye refused to answer this question, and Ham should have held his feet to the fire. Atheists cannot account for immaterial ideas (logic/mind/beauty) in the constantly changing material-only universe.
  7. Nye repeated that Christians need only find one out-of-place fossil to bring down the entire story of evolution, but he rebutted himself with the comment on a young buried forest in the midst of old rock. The theory of evolution is so flexible that it cannot be falsified (therefore it has no explanatory power). There are many known out-of-place artifacts that refute evolutionary expectations. The appearance of dinosaurs in human artwork (Ica stones, stegosaurus at Angkor Wat, Bishop Bell’s brass behemoths, cave paintings of dinosaurs, dinosaur figurines, dinosaur jewelry…) It is an assumption that organisms are buried in an exact order. The geologic column is not consistent. Ham should have pointed out that Christians do not expect nautilus and rodents to be buried together not because they did not live at the same time; they did not live in the same place. Nautilus were sea creatures…rodents live on the land. Therefore, they were buried in different places. The same goes for humans and coelacanth fish. They have never been shown to be buried together, but they are living at the same time. If you're interested in further research on this topic, look here.
  8. Nye claimed that ice core drillings from Antarctica had hundreds of thousands of winter/summer cycle markers. These markers do not denote winter/summer cycles. This is a false assumption. Ham had to rush through his rebuttal of this falsehood from Nye, but the short story is that 1942 era planes crash-landed on and were buried by ice in Greenland. When an enterprising collector went to dig them out, he found that in 50 years over 250 feet of snow accumulated on top of the squadron. Hundreds of layers were recorded by the collectors as he worked to remove the planes. How could hundreds of layers be present after only 50 years? The answer is clear that these are not winter/summer cycle layers. Nye is misinformed.
  9. In the question/answer portion of the debate, Nye was asked how he was able to account for the contradiction of evolution in reference to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. He went into a completely unrelated answer regarding technology and the importance of the sun. When he finally did get back on track his one assertion was that evolution added complexity from the sun’s energy. The sun adds energy, but this is a huge mistake since the energy from the sun is destructive…just like all other energy without an energy converter. Try this experiment: Add the energy of fire, microwaves, bullets, lava, radiation, sunshine, or whatever to a frog to see if it evolves. Adding energy to something without a perfectly designed energy converter (chlorophyll, differential, gears, cylinders, solar panel…) then that something is doomed for destruction not evolution.
  10. When asked where matter or consciousness comes from, Nye’s only reply was “It’s a huge mystery.” Thanks for clearing that up, Bill. 
  11. What would change your mind? My presupposition is God and His word are true. There is no evidence that contradicts God’s Word. The reverse is actually true since all branches of science are finding more and more that the Bible is confirmed. That question is like asking, “Would your mind be changed if someone showed you a square circle?” Everyone has the same evidence as Ham pointed out several times. People interpret evidence according to their worldview, so worldview analysis is important. Which worldview can account for reality and has no contradictions. Atheism is filled with contradictions and cannot account for immaterial items such as information, consciousness, origin of matter, or the laws of logic/mathematics. 
  12. Nye brought up the fossil, Tiktaalik as evidence of evolutionary predictions being shown to be true. The problem is that the evolutionary niche that Tiktaalik was supposed to explain was preempted by another fossil uncovered in soil that was much older (according to evolutionary dating). But the Tiktaalik looks nice in the artist’s rendering like almost every other “evidence” for evolution.
  13. Nye continually spewed the straw man argument that Christians do not embrace technology. This is ridiculous. Nye conflates evolution with science/technology, which is related to the bait and switch that Ham talked about earlier.


There are many others, but these are the notes that I took during the debate. Ham taught very well even if was exposed a bit as a debater. All of the evidence was on Ham’s side and he explained his point very well during his 30 minute portion, and Nye continually disregarded points that Ham had made without refuting them. It’s unfortunate that Nye was charismatic and seemed to “control” the debate. We can continue to pray for him and those who might have been led astray by Nye’s arguments.